2015Nu68910 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application for authorization to establish a recycling business mutual aid association

A Stock Company

The Minister of Environment

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap707 decided November 13, 2015

May 17, 2016

June 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of rejecting an application for authorization to establish a recycling business mutual aid association filed with the plaintiff on February 14, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff first instance court, around January 2, 2014, approved an application for authorization to establish a recycling business mutual aid cooperative filed by the Plaintiff with the Defendant on January 2, 2014, and subsequently sought revocation of the return of the application for authorization to establish a recycling business mutual aid cooperative filed by the Defendant on February 14, 2014. The first instance court dismissed the primary claim on the ground that the lawsuit for performance of obligation is not allowed under the interpretation of the current Administrative Litigation Act, and dismissed the conjunctive claim on the ground that the Defendant did not err by the law as alleged by the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the plaintiff appealed only for the conjunctive claim, and the scope of this court's trial is limited to the conjunctive claim.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "No. 8, 2014." No. 9 of the first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance

3. It is reasonable to view that a stock company, which is a juristic person established for the purpose of commercial activity or other profit-making, does not constitute a juristic person authorized to obtain authorization from a mutual aid association.

① In principle, Article 27(1) of the Resource Recycling Act provides that producers obligated to recycle may establish a mutual aid association; Article 30 of the Act on Resource Recycling shall apply mutatis mutandis to a cooperative, except as otherwise provided for in the Act on Resources Recycling; and the Civil Act regulates only non-profit corporations. In light of the system of the aforementioned relevant provisions, the mutual aid association appears to have the nature of a non-profit association governed by the Civil Act.

(2) Article 27 (4) of the Resources Recycling Act provides that "where a corporation established for the purpose of recycling wastes pursuant to Article 32 of the Civil Act and other Acts obtains authorization to act as an agent for producers obligated to recycle, this corporation shall be deemed a mutual aid association. In light of this, it is reasonable to deem that a corporation deemed a mutual aid association pursuant to Article 27 (4) of the Resources Recycling Act also has the character of a non-profit association, such as a mutual aid association (Article 32 of the Civil Act on the establishment of a non-profit corporation is enumerated in the same purport).

(3) The purpose of the Resource Recycling Act is to contribute to the preservation of the environment and the sound development of the national economy by circularly using resources such as controling the generation of wastes and facilitating recycling (Article 1 of the Resources Recycling Act). Article 16 of the Resources Recycling Act imposes on producers obligated to recycle wastes the obligation to recover and recycle wastes to facilitate the recycling of wastes. A corporation under Article 27(4) of the Resources Recycling Act imposes on such producers obligated to recycle the obligation on behalf of such producers. In short, a corporation established for recycling purposes obtains authorization from the Minister of Environment to carry out the said obligation on behalf of such producers, and a corporation under Article 27(4) of the Resources Recycling Act is “recycling” established for the public interest purpose of promoting the Act on Resource Recycling rather than all corporations. Article 48(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Resources Recycling Act provides that a corporation shall entrust the business of certifying the recycling obligation under Article 17-2 of the Resources Recycling Act to a mutual aid association. Therefore, a corporation under Article 27(4) of the Resources Recycling Act also has the status of an administrative body.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, the highest judge

Judges fixed-term machines

Judges Cho Yong-chul